Just over a year removed from the greatest bull market in US
history, much has changed in the relationship between the press and the
corporation.

The explosions at Enron and other companies have created a blow-back
effect, decimating the level of trust and professionalism inherent in
making the press-company partnership work. The abrupt shift brings to
mind the changing relationship between the press and the President
before and after Watergate.

As investors call for their political constituents to act and reform
corporate oversight, it has become an uncomfortable time for corporate
communications executives to operate. The chain of command that extends
from the tops of corporations, to corporate communications, to the
press, and to the individual investor has been broken. How do you figure
out what the real issues are for a more skeptical media? And how can you
make sure that the information executives disclose is not only vetted by
higher-ups, but verifiable?

In talking with clients, I have found that the onus on giving credible
information is greater than ever. Corporate communications executives
are often just the messengers from a CFO or CEO, and yet they are often
given information assumed to be accurate. Now executives are dealing
with a press that, at least in some instances, feels it has been taken
advantage of.

Another thing corporate communications officers need to understand is
that the distribution of hyperbolic or marginal news will not be
tolerated.

Judicious use of new information is a must since you're now addressing a
far different and skeptical audience than one or two years ago. To
accomplish this, officers need to have a higher line of reporting within
their companies than they presently have.

If corporate communications directors are truly responsible for
disseminating accurate data, then a relationship with the highest level
of the executive branch inside a company needs to be established. A
relationship with a mid-level intermediary can jeopardize the very
information that is up for future scrutiny. Reports from a Wall Street
analyst, for instance, need to be put under more due diligence.
Quarterly reports need to be vetted again and again not only to ensure
they've been properly audited, but also checked by top financial
officials.

Financial journalists, as a group, are hurt by the fact that they were
taken in the way they were during the bull market. It is vital that
corporate communications executives understand their current state of
mind when discussing future issues. And this cannot be done by simply
using electronic forums.

To rebuild a strong relationship between the media and communications
executives, this must be done in person, in one-on-one
meet-and-greets.

While a phone call is a good first step, it's now time to take that
extra step to reestablish the trust that has been jeopardized by what
might seem (to you and me) to be outside, secondary factors.

For example, a communications director may feel as if his or her company
had nothing to do with the corporate meltdown of some more highly
publicized firms, and doesn't have anything to apologize for when it
comes to the press. But all journalists have changed their MO - not just
the ones covering Enron and Global Crossing.

So be straightforward with reporters when issuing news and
announcements.

While we possess the ability to distribute information more easily and
quickly than ever, it's important to remember some of the more basic,
tried-and-true ways of winning over the press. A handshake over a drink
or at a conference can go a much longer way in reestablishing
relationships than a mass e-mail.